It's brought all over Chassidus that kesser is the idea of rotzoin. The idea comes from the Ramak and the Arizal disgreed with him however.

The disagreement is clearly spelled out in Chassidus - in maamorei admur ho'emtzoee - honochois tof kuf ayin zayin pg. 573, where it says that Arizal held otherwise.

Why does chassidus so commonly take the opinion that goes against kabbolos hoArizal?

The Ramak spoke more generally, and the Arizal was more specific.

The Arizal did not "disagree" that Rotzon is IN Keser, only that Keser does not equal Rotzon. On the contrary, the Arizal is very clear that Rotzon is IN Keser (metzach harotzon of arich is nimshach from yesod of Atik.. or mazal haches venoitzer, oisios tzinor, rotzoin etc) and the Arizal brings this directly from the Zohar. (See Etz Chaim, Shaar 10, Ch. 2; Shaar 13, Ch. 6, 7, 13 etc.)

The explanation is simply that lefi the Arizal (and Chassidus in general) Rotzoin is an inyon of Hispashtus (as opposed to Oineg - also in Kesser) of a ha'oro of Keser (and above) in Av"A and beyond...

So Chassidus does not take a position that is "against the Arizal", but on the contrary, Chassidus clearly is in accordance with the Arizal's specificity.

If you reread what you quoted from the Mittler Rebbe, you will see that he does not say what you said he says, but rather, "Rotzon hoo oisios tzinor hoo HAMSHOCHAS Keser L'Chochmah" i.e. it is a "function" of Keser but not the totality of Keser - as in the general terms of the Ramak.

I didn't make a plugta b'mikubolim. The M"R did. That means that there is a tzad machloikes here. I don't like your way of smoothing out the machloikes and simply dismissing it with an explanation (even though it has its way in rationale - which I actually do stand by).

Then again, the M"R says the explanation that you're bringing (in different oysios of course). Still called it a plugta though...

In the meantime still have to take a look in the Eitz Chaim that you mentioned. I would like to see what the M"R writes in a greater context.

I don't like your way of smoothing out the machloikes and simply dismissing it with an explanation (even though it has its way in rationale - which I actually do stand by).

You don't have to like "my way"... That is fine.. have your "plugta" without the explanation of WHAT the plugta ACTUALLY IS according to the M"R's OWN WORDS which you summarized to create a BIGGER problem that Chassidus ARGUES(!?) on the Arizal. I'm not really sure what your point in asking the question in the first place is, if you are not looking for an explanation that answers your question..

What's interesting to note is that the M"R takes it much further than your simple explanation. Perhaps that's because the issue is a bigger deal. The M"R's acutally bringing this to explain a shito amongst mikublolim (I've seen this in seforim throuhout) - that the idea of rotzoin is actually in chochmo (as opposed to kesser). Your explanation is "nice", but it has to work with the whole maamor, not just those few lines that you decided to comment on.

What's interesting to note is that the M"R takes it much further than your simple explanation.

My simple explanation is from the M"R himself (I actually quoted what he ACTUALLY says, and what the Arizal ACTUALLY says), so not sure where he "takes it further".

Quote:

Perhaps that's because the issue is a bigger deal.

Perhaps not.

Quote:

The M"R's acutally bringing this to explain a shito amongst mikublolim (I've seen this in seforim throuhout) - that the idea of rotzoin is actually in chochmo (as opposed to kesser).

Actually, that is not why he is bringing this. He is bringing it in order to explain that ראיה of חכמה - which is what he is explaining in the Maamar - is the hispashtus of the כח המשכיל from Keser to be misgaleh in חכמה, as is quite clear.

Quote:

Your explanation is "nice", but it has to work with the whole maamor, not just those few lines that you decided to comment on.

My explanation works just fine with the whole maamar, as well as the shita of the Mittler Rebbe bichlal, while yours misses the forest for the trees.

You are once again oversimplifying and overgeneralizing his words once again without being medayek and forgetting the basics along the way.

According to the Maamar which is describing the difference between ראיה and שמיעה, there are two types of רצון:

The ראיה that he is talking about in the Maamar is the התגלות א"ס בחכמה (or in the loshon of the Maamar is רצון שמלמעלה למטה הוא רצון של הא"ס להיות אצי i.e. it is the רצון אותיות צינור (his words) from כח המשכיל שנק' ח"ס דא"א... which is the מקור מוצא כל שכל מאין.. i.e. דאור אבא יונק ממזל הח' ונוצר... THAT is the ראיה that he is talking about (יחוד פנימי דאו"א).

I'll respond as soon as I can get through the sources to Eitz Chaim that you mention. So far, from what I've already looked up, I've found them to be entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Have you looked these sources up before you gave them to me?

An aside: the idea of "tzinor oysios rotzoin vchu..." isn't new to me. I've seen it in the Arizal's Likutei Torah parshas toldos and parshas ki siso, Pri Eitz Chaim shaar slichois perek 8, Mikdash Melech on Zohar vol 2 pg 156a, Zohar HaRakiya vol 1 52, and in Meoirey Oir (from R' Meir Poprush) - ois tzadik s'if lamed (or lamed vov - in the Warsaw print from tof reish chof ches). For anyone looking up this inyan, here might be a some better places to look. Like I mentioned in my last post, of the sources you've supplied, so far, the one's I've already looked into seem to be irrelevant to the point you're trying to bring out. I actually wonder if you looked them up and read what's inside, or if you just pulled it out of a footnote from a sefer.

In any event, the M"R's maamer is based directly on the A"R's maamer in tof kuf samech dalet pg kuf mem alef. There the A"R explains that is idea from the Arizal in greater clarity. The idea as it is understood there, is that it's only called rotzoin when it's the bechino of "tzinor" - meaning, when it's drawn down into moiach hachochmo. Kesser, mitzad itself isn't called rotzoin. That seems like the mehalech that the M"R is taking in his maamer as well...

An aside: the idea of "tzinor oysios rotzoin vchu..." isn't new to me. I've seen it in the Arizal's Likutei Torah parshas toldos and parshas ki siso, Pri Eitz Chaim shaar slichois perek 8, Mikdash Melech on Zohar vol 2 pg 156a, Zohar HaRakiya vol 1 52, and in Meoirey Oir (from R' Meir Poprush) - ois tzadik s'if lamed (or lamed vov - in the Warsaw print from tof reish chof ches). For anyone looking up this inyan, here might be a some better places to look. Like I mentioned in my last post, of the sources you've supplied, so far, the one's I've already looked into seem to be irrelevant to the point you're trying to bring out. I actually wonder if you looked them up and read what's inside, or if you just pulled it out of a footnote from a sefer.

Of course, but nu nu.. Speaking of off sources, your original post page number is off...

Quote:

In any event, the M"R's maamer is based directly on the A"R's maamer in tof kuf samech dalet pg kuf mem alef. There the A"R explains that is idea from the Arizal in greater clarity. The idea as it is understood there, is that it's only called rotzoin when it's the bechino of "tzinor" - meaning, when it's drawn down into moiach hachochmo. Kesser, mitzad itself isn't called rotzoin. That seems like the mehalech that the M"R is taking in his maamer as well...

Isn't that what I have been trying to point out.. yet you insist that the Rama"k would argue when l'fi shitoso all of the sefiros are only discussable b'toar chiyuvi in relation to their hispashtus.. so where is the plugta if not only in the generalization (which is also used in Chassidus).. Eilu v'eilu DA"CH... but depends on the context, as in your other thread.. but like I told the other Rabbi M.. I shouldn't have bothered..

IIRC, I seem to remember seeing somewhere where the Rebbe(im) addressed this Chavos Yoir. I'll have to look into that. I don't remember what I saw (or where I saw it).

I'm not sure of where the Rebbeim addressed this, but I do know the famous story of what the Rebbe said during a (mem ches) farbrengen when R' Michael Golomb wrote pshat in the Eimek Hamelech in order to resolve a tzorich iyun that he had on a ho'oro the Rebbe wrote on ranat.

I didn't make a plugta b'mikubolim. The M"R did. That means that there is a tzad machloikes here. I don't like your way of smoothing out the machloikes and simply dismissing it with an explanation (even though it has its way in rationale - which I actually do stand by).

Then again, the M"R says the explanation that you're bringing (in different oysios of course). Still called it a plugta though...

In the meantime still have to take a look in the Eitz Chaim that you mentioned. I would like to see what the M"R writes in a greater context.

The MR says that according to the Arizal, Kesser isn't "called by the name Ratzon." He doesn't say that Kesser is not Ratzon. That is, he does not say that Kesser is does not refer to the makif of desire/pleasure. Rather, we do not call it by a name that implies המשכת כתר לחכמה, a drawing (because Kesser is a makif, rather than something that can be drawn into something else).

In Chassidus we differentiate between Atik and Arich. That is, we differentiate between the way in which Pleasure(Oneg)/Atik (these two are usually paired, but not always) refers to something that is essential, and not dependent on outside stimuli and the way in which Desire(Ratson)/Arich refers to the way in which the essential pleasure relates to external stimuli to form a desire.

For more explanation of these terms, take a look at Likutei Levi Yitzchak, in his first discussion about Maseches Pesachim (the three "Roshin". There are plenty of other places where this is discussed. But that one is timely, and it gives a very good explanation.

Perhaps it does seem like I'm making mountains out of molehills. In actuality though, I'm just asking a very basic klotz kasheh with the intent that people will see this and point out substantiated pshat. I also don't disagree with Tuesday (and I don't maintain that rotzoin isn't in kesser according to the Arizal). All I'm saying is that the M"R uses the loshoin: אך הענין כי יש פלוגתא בזה במקובלים, שי"א שהכתר נק' בשם רצון, אך לפי קבלת האריז"ל אינו נק' בשם רצון, and that needs explanation in contrast to the rest of Chassidus. What did the Arizal hold? What did others hold? If this is all relatively speaking why was this considered a "plugta" at all? If it is was called a plugta, who was machriya? Where do we see this hachroho'o directly substantiated within the words of the mekubolim/rebbeim? The reason I didn't accept what Tuesday wrote was because he attempted to be machriya this on his own, and further, to force his pshat on me.

So let me ask clearer (without making questions on all of Chassidus - which I also don't believe we have...): did the Rebbeim clearly address this plugta; what it was and what it wasn't?

It's not uncommon that I hear that there are never any machloikesen, and that in essence everyone's saying the same thing. It's not uncommon that that I hear that there are never any arguments and that the simple way to resolve an argument is the Arizal's way of explaining each side individually, and how that makes up a part in the entire klal. But this isn't always the case. See for instance in Igros vol 1 (about the famous letter concerning tzimtzum). There the Rebbe said that the individual who says that everyone's saying the same thing (R' Eliyahu Dessler) obviously isn't very knowledgeable in kabboloh.

My point isn't to force an argument when there isn't one. All I'm saying is that if the M"R called it a plugta, then perhaps it isn't something that we can be machriya simply on our own (and certainly without any real backing). Is this "plugta" addressed at all? Without any background on what this plugta is at all, it would be extremely difficult to say that this very maamer is the hachroh'oh.

Just a maamer hamusger and something interesting I noticed: in the footnotes on maamorim, the idea that kesser is the idea of rotzoin is always referenced to places in the Ramak (such as: Pardes shaar Erchei Hakinuyim - erech "rotzoin", Shiur Koima s'if mem zayin maareches asiya, Ayin Hab'duloch Tomor alef ch. 6). It seemed interesting to me that I haven't yet seen it brought directly from the Arizal. I'm wondering if anyone would be able to point out if it's ever been brought directly in the name of the Arizal (from any of the Rebbeim - or at the least an oriech?), and if not, why might that be?

Perhaps it does seem like I'm making mountains out of molehills. In actuality though, I'm just asking a very basic klotz kasheh with the intent that people will see this and point out substantiated pshat. I also don't disagree with Tuesday (and I don't maintain that rotzoin isn't in kesser according to the Arizal). All I'm saying is that the M"R uses the loshoin: אך הענין כי יש פלוגתא בזה במקובלים, שי"א שהכתר נק' בשם רצון, אך לפי קבלת האריז"ל אינו נק' בשם רצון, and that needs explanation in contrast to the rest of Chassidus. What did the Arizal hold? What did others hold? If this is all relatively speaking why was this considered a "plugta" at all? If it is was called a plugta, who was machriya? Where do we see this hachroho'o directly substantiated within the words of the mekubolim/rebbeim? The reason I didn't accept what Tuesday wrote was because he attempted to be machriya this on his own, and further, to force his pshat on me.

So let me ask clearer (without making questions on all of Chassidus - which I also don't believe we have...): did the Rebbeim clearly address this plugta; what it was and what it wasn't?

It's not uncommon that I hear that there are never any machloikesen, and that in essence everyone's saying the same thing. It's not uncommon that that I hear that there are never any arguments and that the simple way to resolve an argument is the Arizal's way of explaining each side individually, and how that makes up a part in the entire klal. But this isn't always the case. See for instance in Igros vol 1 (about the famous letter concerning tzimtzum). There the Rebbe said that the individual who says that everyone's saying the same thing (R' Eliyahu Dessler) obviously isn't very knowledgeable in kabboloh.

My point isn't to force an argument when there isn't one. All I'm saying is that if the M"R called it a plugta, then perhaps it isn't something that we can be machriya simply on our own (and certainly without any real backing). Is this "plugta" addressed at all? Without any background on what this plugta is at all, it would be extremely difficult to say that this very maamer is the hachroh'oh.

Just a maamer hamusger and something interesting I noticed: in the footnotes on maamorim, the idea that kesser is the idea of rotzoin is always referenced to places in the Ramak (such as: Pardes shaar Erchei Hakinuyim - erech "rotzoin", Shiur Koima s'if mem zayin maareches asiya, Ayin Hab'duloch Tomor alef ch. 6). It seemed interesting to me that I haven't yet seen it brought directly from the Arizal. I'm wondering if anyone would be able to point out if it's ever been brought directly in the name of the Arizal (from any of the Rebbeim - or at the least an oriech?), and if not, why might that be?

It is clear that the language that some mekubalim used to describe concepts in Kabbalah differs, even drastically, from language used by other mekubalim to describe the same concept. For example, mekubalim never refer to tzimtzum harishon before the Arizal (that's the most famous example). That doesn't meant that they disagree about the existence of a tzimtzum harishon - just that the term, and therefore the elucidation of the concept - began with the Arizal. There are many examples of this between the Ramak and the Arizal.

This is quite different, however, from saying that there are no machlokesin in Kabbalah. There clearly are examples of machlokes in Kabbalah. This example, however, just isn't such an example. Its an example of different language being used to express different facets of the same topic.

You are correct that this can be explained in a way that works with our understanding of the Arizal all throughout Chassidus (like Tuesday and yourself mentioned: that "Kesser isn't "called by the name Ratzon."). That would go along with what you said that the mekubolim had a different language to describe the same thing.

Apart from that though - why does the M"R call it a plugta and even give it tzdodim.. "yesh oimrim... ach l'fee kabolas ha'arizal..."? It's not I who coined this a "plugta" (as Tuesday perhaps suggested). The M"R did. If it is indeed a plugta, it then requires the background that I asked about.

That's exactly it. I'm stuck on the way the M"R first brought this up, terming this a "plugta" and dividing sides. That much is substantiated within the words of the M"R.

Quote:

It means what I said before.

... and that much isn't yet substantiated (and at most is b'derech efsher - enough that the question shouldn't be bothersome). I realize that such a mehalech makes sense to yourself and Tuesday, but when we're learning pshat in a maamer, I can't justify not going further then that and seeking out direct pshat from the words of the Rebbeim. I'm sure it's quite clear why I'm not satisfied with such a pshat.

I also think it's worth pointing out that your mehalech is the polar opposite (-being that the "plugta" part doesn't concern you at the least). I see that in your quote of the M"R a few posts back - when you go on to explain the meaning of this - you decided not to include that part altogether. Is it irrelevant to this discussion? I also agree that if we delete that line from the maamor it will resolve this whole issue.

Furthermore, if the M"R had wanted to explain the difference as to why in regard to rotzoin, sometimes we refer to chochmo and sometimes we refer to keser (like he asks: ובחי' מוח חכמה נק' בשם רצון. אך לכאורה אינו מובן שהרי בחי' רצון הוא בחי' כתר), he didn't have to bring the Arizal into this, and he certainly didn't have to make a "plugta" out of it. In the Ramak you'll find both mentions (that rotzoin is the idea of kesser (that I mentioned in a post above) and that rotzoin is the idea of chochmo - [I don't remember where off hand, but I can look it up if you're interested]). Couldn't the M"R just bring both mentions from the Ramak and explain each one in its own context? Why did he have to make a "plugta" out of this in the first place? And why did he have to bring the Arizal into this altogether?